Why is everybody crapping their pants about new socket every 2 years? Do you honestly have to get a new processor and mobo every 2 years? my LGA 775 is still running perfect with ni hiccups and it runs at 100% all the time I got it back in 2008.

I think people should be asking the question why did we loose 5 pins? It seems backwards to get less pins, but this may mean they have made it more efficient.

Why is everybody crapping their pants about new socket every 2 years? Do you honestly have to get a new processor and mobo every 2 years? my LGA 775 is still running perfect with ni hiccups and it runs at 100% all the time I got it back in 2008.

I think people should be asking the question why did we loose 5 pins? It seems backwards to get less pins, but this may mean they have made it more efficient.

Click to expand...

CPU's typically come with a large number of ground pins dotted around. I'd hazard a guess that they've just lost a few of those. Perhaps it's also the case that the new design doesn't need as many signal lines as the old one? Only a detailed breakdown of the pinouts of both will answer this question.

Who care's if it's a new socket every 2 years, it was a new chipset every 2 years with LGA775 that you needed to buy a new motherboard for if you wanted the latest chip, there's no difference.

Click to expand...

The only excepting being the 965P, that chipset supported pretty much every 775 chip in existence(except the 1600FSB ones).

But, yeah, agree with you in principle. Most people upgrade their motherboard when they upgrade their processor(most upgrade the whole damn computer). And the enthusiasts are probably the select few that upgrade processors alone.

I'm at least happy that they have left Ivy Bridge on the same socket, unlike the 1156 users(like myself) that saw one generation of high end processor and that was it.

And for anyone that wants a reasoning behind changing sockets when moving to new architectures, ask AMD. They themselves have commented on how they've had to make sacrifices to the product in order to maintain compatibility.

eh sticking with 1155 for a while...can upgrade to Ivy B whenever down the road. This is definitely one "tock" that I will wait at least for it's "tick" until I make another socket switch. 1150...where did my pins go? See you guys in 2014, which there maybe some actual software worth upgrading for then.

So socket 2011 will be irrelevant in a year save for people needing lots of cheap ram.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy 2011, it is just like 1366, very little benefit over the "mid-range" socket for a price premium(unless you really need 6-cores for something). The only reason most people buy 1366, and the reason most will buy 2011, is to e-peen factor and that is it.

1366, the first nehalem (tylersburg platform) when released introduced a huge performance increase over the existing 775 platforms, granted you could get QX9770's that performed well, but for people who were on lower end C2D's/Athlons and such, it was well worth the expense.

lynnefield 1156, brought no benefits to those who had already adopted tylserburg nehalem, and was a value choice for people who were still on an older platform. those who waited for 1155 sandy bridge architecture from 775 would have had the best performance - value ratio, upgrading to a value mainstream platform which outperformed the already two generations old tylersburg nehalem.
anyone upgrading to Sandy bridge-E (patsburg) who's using anything newer or faster then 775 or lynnefield platform is not going to be gaining value for money, as it would be too much a side-grade and a waste. but for someone who's still on a 1156 or 775 platform would benefit greatly even if it is considered an extreme platform.
of course, the more platform generations that release and the longer you can wait, the better the performance to value ratio gets, but you have to pick your platform type and architecture carefully.

It will be a while before something tops the lga1155/2600 performance to value ratio, but it will happen. It doesn't mean that other platforms are completely pointless, they may be so to anyone on anything that can perform well at the moment, but are still a vast improvement to anybody who's running a dated or slow platform.

I wouldn't recommend anyone buy 2011, it is just like 1366, very little benefit over the "mid-range" socket for a price premium(unless you really need 6-cores for something). The only reason most people buy 1366, and the reason most will buy 2011, is to e-peen factor and that is it.

Click to expand...

I disagree... LGA 2011 will have a 4-core chip at around 2600K price (perhaps even lower!). The only thing that is more will be the mobo, so you choose LGA 2011 if you want certain features and an upgrade path (6-core SB-E, 4/6/8 core IB-E). You also get quad-channel RAM, more PCI-E lanes, better OCing (closer to a mix of LGA 1366 and lga 1155), more SATA ports, more RAM slots (up to 8, so having 32GB of RAM is much cheaper here) and few other perks of having the highest end board. So yes, you do pay ~150$ more, but there are reasons to pay 150$

For me, the 8 RAM slots, the PCI-E lanes, the style of Ocing AND the future upgrade path are all the reasons I am going 2011. I need the RAM (not going to pay for 8GB modules), I prefer the style of OCing, I like to have the option of having a lot of PCI-E lanes as I often go multi-GPU and I am interested in going RevoDrive, and I'd like to keep my setup for longer than the LGA 1155 would let me, I do not want to be limited to 4 cores in the future

I'm starting to get the impression that Intel wants you to buy a new motherboard every two years.

Click to expand...

As far as I think, it's OK. There are 2 ways..
1. Create an Architecture to an existing socket
2. Create an Architecture 1st and then create a socket to the Architecture.

AMD is doing the 1st and Intel is doing the 2nd. The 2nd way is better than first in most ways. It will give the developers full freedom, they can integrate whole ideas, no problems when offering new features and give them relatively lower complexity to develop both the processors and socket.

I disagree... LGA 2011 will have a 4-core chip at around 2600K price (perhaps even lower!). The only thing that is more will be the mobo, so you choose LGA 2011 if you want certain features and an upgrade path (6-core SB-E, 4/6/8 core IB-E). You also get quad-channel RAM, more PCI-E lanes, better OCing (closer to a mix of LGA 1366 and lga 1155), more SATA ports, more RAM slots (up to 8, so having 32GB of RAM is much cheaper here) and few other perks of having the highest end board. So yes, you do pay ~150$ more, but there are reasons to pay 150$

For me, the 8 RAM slots, the PCI-E lanes, the style of Ocing AND the future upgrade path are all the reasons I am going 2011. I need the RAM (not going to pay for 8GB modules), I prefer the style of OCing, I like to have the option of having a lot of PCI-E lanes as I often go multi-GPU and I am interested in going RevoDrive, and I'd like to keep my setup for longer than the LGA 1155 would let me, I do not want to be limited to 4 cores in the future

Click to expand...

Yes, by the time 2011 has a Quad at around the same price as the 2600K, the 2600K will be priced lower.

The extra PCI-E lanes don't really make any difference, especially not at PCI-E 3.0.

And the ability to adjust BCLK with that odd multiplier setup isn't really helping that much, especially with the sacrifice of the unlocked CPU multiplier. I'd take an unlocked CPU multiplier over a locked with an odd BCKL multipler setup anyday. I don't see why anyone would prefer the 2011 style of overclocking. Just having a straight unlocked multiplier is by far the best.

There are 1155 boards that offer up to 10 SATA ports already(and that is on a $160 board), if you need more than that you probably shouldn't be using onboard anyway.

Like I said, the only reason to go 2011 is if you really need 6-cores for something, but since most don't need 6 cores, I wouldn't recommend spending more money for a bunch of stuff that looks nice on paper, but gives no real world benefit to 99% of people looking to buy.

You're assuming performance on socket 2011 is going to be about the same as a socket 1155/ 2600k but I expect a good improvement around 30%.

The memory system is going to bring the biggest % of performance increase, not because its quad channel but because they doubled the memory bit bus from the CPU.

Its not going to be the same situation like dual channel vs triple channel where the memory bit bus stayed the same.

Socket 2011 has unlocked CPU multiplier AND unlocked bclk so they have both options and There will be a reasonably priced non-extreme CPU with unlocked multi.

Clock for clock, socket 2011 should be at least 30% faster than socket 1155, If its not, Intel wont sell many systems. They are targeting socket 1366 owners who still get good performance, so unless socket 2011 is good people will just stick with socket 1366 and new buyers will go with socket 1155.

I doubt very much that socket 2011 will be similar to socket 1155 performance.

The LGA 2011 quad that is coming out in less than a week is supposed to be [around] the 2600K price...

If you are looking to keep this setup for a long time, PCI-E bandwidth may start to be a problem in the future... especially if you are thinking of multi-GPU + RevoDrive etc. Ans so far, I do not see many PCI-E 3.0 mobos, is SB even PCI-E 3.0 compatible or will it be a IB only feature?

As said, I was referring to BCLK + multiplier unlocked.

You don't have to need 6 cores right now, but in 3 years? Also, the 4-core should be the same price, and the only premium you would be paying is on the mobo. For the upgrade path and the quad-channel and the RAM slots and the PCI-E lanes and the slightly higher performance, I'll go SB-E

Perhaps the 2011 socket is probably not 30% faster, but it will stll be faster than SB for sure, probably enough to make some kind of difference

Socket 2011 has unlocked CPU multiplier AND unlocked bclk so they have both options and There will be a reasonably priced non-extreme CPU with unlocked multi.

Click to expand...

Yeah, no there won't, not sure where you got that info. All the lower end will be locked. Why else would Intel hold a press conference on overclocking a locked SandyBridge-E? don't expect anything unlocked under $500, and AFAIK none of the quads will be unlocked.

Clock for clock, socket 2011 should be at least 30% faster than socket 1155, If its not, Intel wont sell many systems. They are targeting socket 1366 owners who still get good performance, so unless socket 2011 is good people will just stick with socket 1366 and new buyers will go with socket 1155.

Click to expand...

As I said, I disagree, but we won't know for sure until it is released and reviewed. I don't believe it will be anywhere near 30% faster than 1155. And plenty of systems will sell, for the reason I already said, e-peen.

If you are looking to keep this setup for a long time, PCI-E bandwidth may start to be a problem in the future... especially if you are thinking of multi-GPU + RevoDrive etc. Ans so far, I do not see many PCI-E 3.0 mobos, is SB even PCI-E 3.0 compatible or will it be a IB only feature?

Click to expand...

PCI-E 3.0 is IB only, AFAIK, so that means no PCI-E 3.0 for SandyBridge-e too. But no, even an x8/x8 setup with multi-GPU setups isn't bandwidth limitted(except maybe with a couple dual-GPU card, but if you can afford those, by all means get 2011). But in general, I don't see PCI-E x8 being a limitting factor. And the RevoDrive can go in the 3rd x16 slot that runs at x4.

The problem is the Quad you keep talking about that is going to be "around" the 2600k price isn't unlocked. So you'll be paying $600 for an unlocked processor. So again, I'll take an unlocked processor over a odd BCLK multiplier anyway.

You don't have to need 6 cores right now, but in 3 years? Also, the 4-core should be the same price, and the only premium you would be paying is on the mobo. For the upgrade path and the quad-channel and the RAM slots and the PCI-E lanes and the slightly higher performance, I'll go SB-E

Click to expand...

You don't even need 4 cores right now, so no I don't think we will need 6 in 3 years(especially not when the platform is being replaced in 2). And no, as we've said, the processor isn't going to be anywhere near the same price. So you are paying a premium for the motherboard, and the processor, and the actual performance will be almost identical. Of course that is just my guess, which is as good as yours, but if the performance does turn out to be much better, then I'll change my opinion. But right now, with the info I have, 2011 doesn't look like something I can recommend.